Re: Install media 2012.07.15

I've just been using archlinux less than 6 weeks, and I assess my experience level not adequate to be specific.

It's a Beginners' Guide, and you are an (Arch) beginner -- what would have helped you in the Guide?

zebulon wrote:

I read the thread and I do not understand what the problem was exactly, and how it relates to an issue with the Beginner's guide. Could you please let me know more? So that I edit the guide?

Well, OK.

The first trouble I had was with the initial connection to the internet. As noted in the cited thread, there was only one way and it didn't work for me, and I tried it several times and read the man pages before going to the forum. The suggested work-around worked perfectly the first time and seemed to me to be simpler than as suggested in the Beginner's guide.

The second thing I had trouble with started with the X configuration. Always before I just followed the canned installation. Here now I was expected to make decisions about display managers, window managers, window decorators and desktops without any basic understanding of how they play together. I managed to get through it on the second try, but then again I've been futzing with computers nearly 50 years.

This is not a complaint, just recommendations, and I now am very aware of these things and grateful for it. Consider me an advanced user and not a developer/sysadmin.

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

keepitsimpleengineer wrote:

Well, OK.

The first trouble I had was with the initial connection to the internet. As noted in the cited thread, there was only one way and it didn't work for me, and I tried it several times and read the man pages before going to the forum. The suggested work-around worked perfectly the first time and seemed to me to be simpler than as suggested in the Beginner's guide.

The second thing I had trouble with started with the X configuration. Always before I just followed the canned installation. Here now I was expected to make decisions about display managers, window managers, window decorators and desktops without any basic understanding of how they play together. I managed to get through it on the second try, but then again I've been futzing with computers nearly 50 years.

This is not a complaint, just recommendations, and I now am very aware of these things and grateful for it. Consider me an advanced user and not a developer/sysadmin.

Furthermore, what a great community to work with.

First, thanks a lot for reporting. I understand this was not a complaint, so thank you for testing and trying to fix things. Unfortunately, we need a bit more information to know what was wrong. Especially, can you try to reproduce this? And copy the exact command you typed to obtain the error message? You may try again in a virtual machine (I suggest VirtualBox), so that you do not have to redo an install from scratch.As it was noted in the thread where you reported it, did you use the correct subnet mask? The "other method" that was suggested to you (and was working) does the same thing, just with different commands, but as it was noticed, the problem you may have had is to omit or have a wrong subnet mask (/32).Regarding X configuration, the instructions do work on my side, but I reckon some improvements could be made on the post-install and extra pages. But first it was important to have a very robust Installation guide. The rest will follow!

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

zebulon wrote:

⋯ Unfortunately, we need a bit more information to know what was wrong. Especially, can you try to reproduce this? And copy the exact command you typed to obtain the error message? You may try again in a virtual machine (I suggest VirtualBox), so that you do not have to redo an install from scratch.As it was noted in the thread where you reported it, did you use the correct subnet mask? The "other method" that was suggested to you (and was working) does the same thing, just with different commands, but as it was noticed, the problem you may have had is to omit or have a wrong subnet mask (/32).⋯ Cheers

⁘ the problem you may have had is to omit or have a wrong subnet mask (/32) ⁘

I`m pretty sure I put in the subnet mask because I remember using ⋯/255.255.255.0 the 1st time, then ⋯/24

⁘ Especially, can you try to reproduce this? ⁘

Yes. Since no changes would be made to any installed systems at this point in the install, I reproduced the entire process, carefully recording the steps on another computer.

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

Shouldn't the "ip link" be issued for any kind of connection, wired dynamic, static and wireless anyway? (in the template, it only appears for a static connection). Although I never had to use it prior to using DHCP.The "ip link" command appears for ethX and wlanX interfaces in both the Configure Network and Configure Wireless pages.

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

zebulon wrote:

Can you confirm this was indeed your issue? That the error happens because of this missing command?

I'm sure of it. It's reproducible every time.

zebulon wrote:

Shouldn't the "ip link" be issued for any kind of connection, wired dynamic, static and wireless anyway? (in the template, it only appears for a static connection). Although I never had to use it prior to using DHCP.The "ip link" command appears for ethX and wlanX interfaces in both the Configure Network and Configure Wireless pages.

dhcpcd seems to bring up the link on its own and so does dhclient, so there's no need to issue ip link up beforehand. I only tested with a single wired interface though.

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

MajorTom wrote:

zebulon wrote:

Can you confirm this was indeed your issue? That the error happens because of this missing command?

I'm sure of it. It's reproducible every time.

zebulon wrote:

Shouldn't the "ip link" be issued for any kind of connection, wired dynamic, static and wireless anyway? (in the template, it only appears for a static connection). Although I never had to use it prior to using DHCP.The "ip link" command appears for ethX and wlanX interfaces in both the Configure Network and Configure Wireless pages.

dhcpcd seems to bring up the link on its own and so does dhclient, so there's no need to issue ip link up beforehand. I only tested with a single wired interface though.

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

With losing AIF, no offline install, all the broken upgrades lately etc, it feels like things are falling apart regarding Arch. And then the attitude seems to be "well, if they're not leet enough to use it, then who cares". And when I try to register here I have to decipher a non-working date|shasum|sed sequence to "pass the test". Seriously disappointed... but who cares, right.

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

infidel, many rants like this have already been posted. You registered today and have made three posts, two of them complaints. Have you been using Arch for very long? Many people "survived" the "broken" upgrades with no problems by reading the news or posts before or during the upgrade. Many people like the new install scripts better than the AIF. As was pointed out to you on your other thread, the "test" is an anti-spam device that seems to work very well, no matter what you may think of it.

Please read the Forum Etiquette before you alienate any more people; or are you sure you will never need to ask for help here?

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

2ManyDogs wrote:

infidel, many rants like this have already been posted. You registered today and have made three posts, two of them complaints. Have you been using Arch for very long? Many people "survived" the "broken" upgrades with no problems by reading the news or posts before or during the upgrade. Many people like the new install scripts better than the AIF. As was pointed out to you on your other thread, the "test" is an anti-spam device that seems to work very well, no matter what you may think of it.

Please read the Forum Etiquette before you alienate any more people; or are you sure you will never need to ask for help here?

Sorry but I will just be honest with my opinions even though it is criticism . I've used Arch for around 6-7 years, and before that OpenBSD for longer than that.

Regarding the updates I was previously voicing the opinion that Arch was mature and stable enough to be a production system server os even for the very demanding environments for which I was responsible. Recently with the upgrade problems I would be more careful with that opinion. I managed to break systems upgrading just by reading the posts before being creative. I can't even remember the last time I broke a system to the point of having to reinstall it, I don't think I ever have previously. Of course many "survived" but the point is the impact of those who didn't.

And of course the anti-spam works, thought slightly less that just stopping people to register all together. The problem is that it also prevents people from joining the forum.

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

infidel wrote:

Sorry but I will just be honest with my opinions even though it is criticism . I've used Arch for around 6-7 years, and before that OpenBSD for longer than that.

Honesty is useless if the content is worthless. Rants are blog material, get one. And criticizing without knowing the background is the worst type of ranting, since your complaints are:-a) not newb) not exceptionally validc) because of a and b - not of concern to devs and moderators respectively (on the installer and forum sign-up process)

Concerning the sign-up process, suggesting that we just prevent sign-ups is an indication of the quality of conversation which is likely to follow on from that statement....

Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

ngoonee wrote:

infidel wrote:

Sorry but I will just be honest with my opinions even though it is criticism . I've used Arch for around 6-7 years, and before that OpenBSD for longer than that.

Honesty is useless if the content is worthless. Rants are blog material, get one. And criticizing without knowing the background is the worst type of ranting, since your complaints are:-a) not newb) not exceptionally validc) because of a and b - not of concern to devs and moderators respectively (on the installer and forum sign-up process)

Concerning the sign-up process, suggesting that we just prevent sign-ups is an indication of the quality of conversation which is likely to follow on from that statement....

If you think feedback from users are worthless even thought it is not praise then you should probably find better a task suited for you to get involved in.

So you consider my comment worthless. I consider your reply worthless. This quickly becomes an even more non-constructive discussion. And thanks, if I want to start a blog I will, but I don't care much about the subject.

a) Criticism about the lack of AIF is probably quite new. Comments about stability probably isn't since this is a constant challenge but the point was that it in my view has become a problem, where as before it was not. Which background do you claim I am not familiar with by the way?b) "not exceptionally valid" - I find it hard to decipher this comment.c) And the conclusion is that criticism is of no concern. This is the kind of attitude that surprises and disappoints me.

Regarding comment on the sign-up, it followed the quality of the argument that it works as anti-spam which is kind of obvious if it even stops normal users from signing up.

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

infidel: Despite what you seem to think about message boards, open source communities work differently. This is not a social board, it's almost exclusively to find help for existing technical problems. All development relevant topics should go through the mailing list. You can, of course, discuss such things here, but you won't change anything this way. And yes, complaints about the board software have nothing to do in an OLD thread about an OBSOLETE installer version. This has nothing to do with constructive critizism, it's offtopic, increasing the SnR and as worthless as a rant on a blog.

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

Regarding comment on the sign-up, it followed the quality of the argument that it works as anti-spam which is kind of obvious if it even stops normal users from signing up.

I ask again: how exactly does it stop normal users (i.e. non-bots)?

It is broken in part or completely due to the following- Somebody not currently on a Unix platform might now be able to run the commands at all- Somebody new to Unix might not be happy about cut-and-pasting commands he doesn't understand into a shell- Somebody on a different platform is likely to have to call shasum differently- Somebody on a different platform will evaluate uname to something different- Somebody running the commands in a different timezone might be unable to succeed- The approach is simply unprofessional ... I could probably go on...

So you might say "Find me an Arch developer that cares" and get a slap on the shoulder from a teenager who thinks that he is in the know and has leet skillz, but in my view Arch is one of the absolute best distributions around and if the level of ambition is not higher that this then that opinion needs revising.

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

Awebb wrote:

infidel: Despite what you seem to think about message boards, open source communities work differently. This is not a social board, it's almost exclusively to find help for existing technical problems. All development relevant topics should go through the mailing list. You can, of course, discuss such things here, but you won't change anything this way. And yes, complaints about the board software have nothing to do in an OLD thread about an OBSOLETE installer version. This has nothing to do with constructive critizism, it's offtopic, increasing the SnR and as worthless as a rant on a blog.

Why is that? So in open source communities you can not by definition talk about the impact of change and of issues with change management resulting in stability problems? I'm sorry but this is wrong, obviously this is needed in any developer community regardless of any type. Avoiding talking about structural problems makes a developer community dysfunctional.

The description to this thread says this: "Discussions specifically regarding the Arch Linux distribution and community. NOT generally a place for technical issues unless systemic in nature.". How can this thread then be almost exclusively for existing technical problems. That is a contradiction.